<span>I wish people would stop linking to this guy's vitriolic rants. He is the closest thing there is in reality to the strawman that Christian apologists make of atheists: ranting, angry and hateful.</span>

this is very true... he's also the opposition they wish to silence before the children hear him, or before he puts an original thought into one of the "faithfuls" head. i enjoy his rants and being able to think for myself it take them at exactly that... rants. now if only we could get others to do the same.

Fair enough. I suppose I have a hard time seeing the value in the rant. When I was a believer it was easy to dismiss guys like this as being proof that atheists were just irrational god-haters. It was those who showed patience and courtesy that caused me to pause, think and investigate for myself. Different approaches, I guess.

Fair enough. I suppose I have a hard time seeing the value in the rant. When I was a believer it was easy to dismiss guys like this as being proof that atheists were just irrational god-haters. It was those who showed patience and courtesy that caused me to pause, think and investigate for myself. Different approaches, I guess.

I like Pat Condell's videos. He puts his ideas out there in a clear, straight forward way.<span>Why must we always be polite. Is the pope polite to us when he rants? </span>You could say the same about Christopher Hitchens.Can you find where he is wrong or lying?He has a large following, so I believe he is getting through to many people.

This one was pretty good. The rant is an expression of his moral indignation, and how to express it depends on context.

He's correct in that, based on its own way of going at things, there's no reason to hold religion in respect. I do not believe that we should fake it. News falash Xns, respect is something that's earned! Anyway, the pious want our respect but hate us: "Psalm 14:1 <span>The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.</span> <span>They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.</span>"

Faith is not a valid way to knowledge: it's a cognitive disfunction. Faith is not a virtue; it's a vice. Reason is the virtue, and, as in so many other things, religion has it ass-backwards.

<span>yeah, why is so much people complaining? the guy is right! maybe the way he puts it in, the form of his speech, the sarcasm is annoying to some of you, but that doesn't invalidates his statement. in fact, you can say the same in your own words and put it into a more politicly correct form if you want to. don't fall in the trap of "et tu quoque".</span>

That's one of the reasons I like Christopher Hitchens. He is capable of conveying his criticism in a calm, logical and polite way without taking the edge off and without ranting. As for Condell's following, I would guess most of them were probably atheists before they found out about him. It's just a guess though, I don't have anything to back it up with.

There's nothing wrong with his message, I am just afraid that he might be doing more harm than good. For people to drop their faith it's gonna take information rather than force. In my experience, trying to force something on others usually works the other way.

C'mon people! Why worry about harm or good or following? We don't have an agenda, do we?

Do we? If so we're in trouble. People fall prey to all manner of doubt and dishonesty when they start thinking as groups (read herds) with specific collective goals that take precedence over individual freedom. Let the ranter rant and the persuader persuade and whatever the heck.

Be open, be critical and have fun. Let this very behavior be our most effective message.

It's not that I have respect for religion or that I try to be polite towards religious folks, I simply believe that it is much more effective to point things out and explain them to religious people in a calm, reasonable, and conversational manner rather than simply addressing their faith as a joke. I would much rather point out the inconsistencies and flaws with religious belief rather than directly attack what they believe with insults. Who's method do you guys think is more effective? That of Carl Sagan, Lawrence Krauss, Michael Shermer or Neil DeGrasse Tyson? Or that of Pat Condell?

I'm forced to ask if any of the Condell supporters here actually check any of his sources. I found the statement that he puts his ideas out in a straight forward way particularly funny. Pat Condell is overall incredibly dishonest. He is a huge fan of confirmation bias and lying through omission. Check out this excellent debunk of one of Condell's rants by DLandonCole:

Now that that's out of the way hopefully you guys can listen to Pat with with a bit more skepticism. That is of course based on the assumption that you guys aren't like the fanboys that have since descended on said video. :P

He's not trying to persuade anyone. He's just a man giving you his honest feelings about what's going on with religion. If a Christian dismisses this as just some angry ranting they're stupid and do not see or understand what is going on. This is as honest and as real as you get people.

As I've said a few times now, I am not suggesting he should keep his opinion to himself. My entire point was that his style of delivery does harm to the goal of getting his opinion out there! His (proudly) vitriolic ranting doesn't get a point of view "out there"--it convinces people that his point of view has nothing to offer that is worth listening to.

Imagine being in line to return a product at a store. You are ready to make your case calmly and reasonably. Then the guy in front of you lets out a torrent of hostility and anger in his attempt to return the same product. He gets refused. Now it's your turn up to the counter, and you know you're going to have a much harder time of it thanks to the guy who couldn't be civil. This is my concern: that people like Pat put on the defensive people who would otherwise be open to a rationalist perspective.

He has the right to say whatever he wants, and however he wants. That doesn't mean every way of 'getting a message out there' is equally constructive and effective.

Seeing that you quoted me I took the time to check Dlandomcole points and Pat Condell reference sites.Dlandoncole is like Glen Beck/ Mr. Soro, to Pat Condell.First point - constitution, he agrees Pat was right but twisted facts, It complicated look at Pat links.Second point - multiculturalism -says it about native groups / like canadian native tribes, separate item, not Pat's point. Third point - rape by muslims - The biggest bullshit of his critic, of Pat's five different links, he picks one paragraph about after hours rape, no mean no cases (like that a excuse ). He says nothing about the U.N. Report, the Amnesty International report, plus the others that state muslims are the main cause of rape in Sweden, 50%. Pat is correct. Fourth point - National Democrats =neo nazis, Dlandoncle agrees they are nuts, what his point.I could go on but will anyone read this comment?He seems like an apologias for Islam. I will stay with Pat.

just so you know neither religions you mention are races, no religion is a race or nationality. i find it interesting that the catholic church has not faced conspiracy charges... unfounded rumors of child abuse would get every child removed from their homes if they were anybody else. there are thousands of church protected pedophiles talking to and working with the worlds children every Sunday.

Well, I don't know about this clip, seeing as I haven't watched it, but the fact that he is using a ultra-right wing rhetoric - when (falsely) talking about my country, Sweden, as 'the rape capital of Europe', overtaken (or 'stolen') by hostile muslims who are threatening the Swedish Identity and the Swedish Nation (which apparently belongs to 'us', and not to 'them'), and so forth - is at least making me suspicious. He is stigmatizing cultures, not critizing religions. He is a douche, basically.